Wouter Verhelst wrote: > On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 03:34:51PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: >> On Mon, 24 Aug 2009, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
>> With dependency based ordering, you just state the dependencies and you >> let it figure out the order. >> >>> There are advantages to dependency-based boot systems, sure; but there >>> are advantages to *not* having that, too (e.g., it is more >>> deterministic, and therefore easier to debug). >> Well, both are deterministic but they do not decide of the ordering in the >> same way and it's just easier for our brains to represent a number-based >> sequence. > > Sorry, but dependency-based boot systems are *not* deterministic. > > Let's assume the following: > > - initscript a depends on b > - initscript c declares that it wants a to be started first if it is > installed, but that it is not a problem if it isn't installed. > > Now we may have either of the following situations, depending on whether > the user does or does not install recommendations: > > - b is started first, then a, then c > - b is started, and c too. The order depends on coincidence, since there > is no relationship between the two > > If initscript c should actually declare a dependency on initscript b, > then you have a bug that the maintainer may find himself hard-pressed to > reproduce, simply because he does have the package containing initscript > a installed. If there is a bug in the dependencies of c, then there is indeed a problem that should get fixed. I don't see what you try to prove with that though? Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
